Martov’s and Cherevanin’s Pronouncements in the Bourgeois Press

Telling How Certain Social-Democrats Resort to Bourgeois, Cadet Newspapers, LikeTovarishch, and, ThroughTovarishch, to theNovy Put, in Order to Spread False Reports About Revolutionary Social-Democracy. Refutation. Estimation. Conclusions.

Isit permissible for a Social-Democrat to contribute to bourgeois newspapers?

Certainlyriot.Theoretical considerations, political etiquette and the
practice of the European Social-Democrats are all againstit. As is well
known, this question came up for discussion at a recent congress of the German
Social Democrats.[2]We know that our German comradesseverely condemnthe idea of Social-Democrats contributing to the bourgeois press and resolutely
fight for the principle that the party of the revolutionary proletariat shall
tolerate no blocs or agreements in this field either, but maintain its
independence; that journalist members of the workers’ party should be organised and
controlled, not only in name butin deed; in ether words, should be
party men in the strict sense of the term.

Havewe any right to depart from these rules here in Russia?

Somemight retort: there is an exception to every rule. That is quite true. It
would be wrong to condemn a person in banishment for writing to any
newspaper. It is some times hard to condemn a Social-Democrat who is working in
a minor department of a bourgeois newspaper to earn a living. One can justify
the publication of an urgent and business-like refutation, etc., etc..

Butsee what will happen here. Under the pretext of refuting
“misunderstandings” caused by theSocial-Democratic
“Nashe Dyelo”, L. Martov writes almost two columns in a Cadet
newspaper, calmly expounding the views of some Social-Democrats, arguing
against other Social-Democrats and misrepresenting the views of
Social-Democrats he disagrees with, without caring in the least what pleasure
his literary “bloc” with the Cadets gives to all the enemies of the
proletariat. The Cadet newspapers seize on L. Martov’s article in the Cadet
press, give it wide publicity, add a thing or two of their own to the lie which
he has put into circulation about the revolutionary Social-Democrats, pat him on
the back (seeRech), and so on and so forth. Cherevanin is tempted. If
Martov could write toTovarishchto refute Cherevanin’s
“misunderstandings” and bring in thousands of other thingsat the same time, why should not Cherevanin also write toTovarishchto
refute L. Martov’s “misunderstandings”? And, while he is about it, why not
take advantage of the opportunity to start in the Cadet press (after all, it
would be improper to do so in the Social-Democratic press!) a discussion on the
question whether socialists should vote for bourgeois candidates even without an

			      agreement?[1]

Andso a special feature has been inaugurated in Cadet newspapers: a
family-literary correspondence between Social-Democratic opportunists. Since
its subject is the permissibility of blocs with the Cadets, and even of voting
for the Cadets, the Cadets readily give shelter to the homeless
“progressive” Social-Democrats who are departing from the
“conservative” rules of revolutionary Social—Democracy.

TheMenshevik literary bigwigs dwell in two abodes. In the respectable quarter
they talk to fine gentlemen about blocs with the Cadets and incidentally retail
anecdotes about the revolutionary Social-Democrats. In the grimy quarter, in
some workers’ newspaper or Social-Democratic periodical, or a leaflet, they
offer the workers a “non-party labour congress” and enlighten them
on the absurdity and folly of fighting for a constituent assembly. Let the
workers be patient and wait a little: when the Social-Democratic discussion in
the CadetTovarishchon blocs between socialists and the bourgeoisie
comes to an end, the workers, too, will learn something.... And so, following
the homely rule of one of Turgenev’s characters,[3]our advocates of a labour congress write letter after letter toTovarishch, murmuring the while: our Party is a party of the
intelligentsia....

Willnot the Social-Democratic workers intervene to put a stop to this outrage?
Is it a matter of indifference to the members of our Party?

[1]F. Dan has migrated toTovarishcheven without the object of
refuting “misunderstandings”, but merely for company’s sake.—Lenin

[2]V. I. Lenin has in mind the Dresden Congress of the German
Social-Democratic Party held September 13-20, 1906. The Congress adopted a
resolution prohibiting party members from contributing
to the bourgeois press.

[3]This refers to Turgenev’s poemA Rule of
Life(from the cyclePoems in Prose), whose character ascribes his
own shortcomings
to his opponent.